John C Klensin wrote:
I will accept your interpretation as stated but, if that
interpretation is correct, I believe the IETF should not meet
there while those provisions are in effect unless at least one
of the following conditions arises:
The overview that Michael StJohns (thanks!) pointed to on wikimedia
seems to be a rough approximation of the situation. The situation
described for France (location of the last IETF Meeting) matches
the real/effective Situation much better than the brief citation
of §22 KunstUrhG did for Germany.
(i) the IETF can reasonably require that people give permission
--irrevocable for the length of time they are at the meeting --
as needed to permit the IETF to do things that are considered
convenient of necessary.
That would be the end of "openness" in the IETF.
Why would you want to "punish" folks who come to IETF meetings and
pay the meeting fee, but primarily sit in the back of the room
compared to IETF participants that listen to the audio streams
(or its archives) or folks that have only subscribed to IETF mailing
list or browse the archives.
Do you want to require folks to first send photographs of themselves
before they can listen to IETF Meeting audio streams, subscribe to
IETF mailing lists, or browser the archives?
That is still voluntary in the sense
that attending the meeting is voluntary and still revocable by
leaving the meeting and not coming back-- one can just decide
that, if one doesn't want to volunteer to permit one's picture
to be taken, one can't attend the meeting.
If you are saying that it is illegal to impose a condition that
binds the two together, that is fine: unless the other condition
applies, we shouldn't be meeting in Germany.
Yup, that is not voluntary, that meets the definition of compulsory.
For the IETF as an organization, the EU data protection directive
applies, so the situation will be similar _all_over_Europe_.
I presume, by asserting
that such a binding is not permitted, you are also asserting that
corporate ID badges with pictures on them have disappeared from
Germany or are discretionary on a per-employee basis because a
corporate requirement that, in order to remain employed, one
must wear such a badge wouldn't be voluntary either.
You're confusing things. It will be OK to have a picture on the ID badge
that the employee is _carrying_. After all that is a low-resolution
1x1.5" 2-D picture. There is a high-res 3-D picture of your face
attached to the upper end of the body from which the ID badge is supposed
to be dangling, so that faximile on the badge is not really encroaching
on your privacy, is it?
But the employer is not allowed to retain copies of the photo that
was imprinted on the badge beyond production of the badge itself,
and neither of duplicate/backup badges with your picture on it
_without_ voluntary consent.